Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Management Policy and Black-Box Warnings

A Qualitative Analysis of US FDA Proceedings

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The US FDA increasingly applies risk management to drug safety policy. Little is known about the process by which the FDA approves labelling changes. Although advisory committees can recommend any of the risk management tools, including the use of ’black-box warnings’, it is unknown whether they deliberate on these questions or how they apply the principles of risk minimization or management during their considerations of drug licensing.

Objective: To examine the process by which risk management is considered by the FDA, including the role of FDA advisory committees. We also aimed to identify and describe drug labelling changes and additions, including the prevalence of black-box warnings.

Methods: We electronically obtained publicly available information regarding drug approvals, drug revisions and advisory committee meetings over 3 years (2004–6) from the FDA. Data in the form of meeting transcripts and full histories of labelling changes were collected on drugs discussed by advisory committees. We then searched and qualitatively analysed the meeting transcripts to identify themes in the discussion. We also created a database of all prescription drug labelling changes for 3 years and examined which drugs have had the most changes. We describe the risk management consideration process and report the frequency and characteristics of labelling changes. Excerpts from the transcripts are selected to illustrate both typical and atypical features of the discussion.

Findings: A total of 174 black-box changes were made in the 3-year period of our study, of which 77 were new black-box warnings and 97 were revisions in black-box warnings. Of 77 new black-box warning additions, only 11 drugs were discussed by the advisory committees. Of the 17 most frequently revised drug labels in these 3 years, two were discussed in the advisory committee meetings. Advisory meeting discussions revealed confusion about black-box warnings and emphasized potential consequences of the warnings rather than their content.

Conclusion: The safety labelling of drugs on the market is changed often. Panels of advisors consider only a few drugs, rarely discuss the labelling requirements, and display confusion about applying black-box warnings. The creation and application of black-box warnings on prescription medications should receive closer attention from the FDA and its advisors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meltzer D. Risks and benefits of risk-management plans. Health Aff 2007 May/Jun; 26(3): 681–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gottlieb S. Drug safety proposals and the intrusion of federal regulation into patient freedom and medical practice. Health Aff 2007 May/Jun; 26(3): 664–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avorn J. Drug warnings that can cause fits: communicating risks in a data-poor environment. N Engl J Med 2008 Sep 4; 359(10): 991–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanjanarat P, Winterstein AG, Johns TE, et al. Nature of preventable adverse drug events in hospitals: a literature review. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2003 Sep; 60: 1750–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Classen D. Medication safety: moving from illusion to reality. JAMA 2003 Mar 5; 289(9): 1154–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Classen DC, Metzger J. Improving medication safety: the measurement conundrum and where to start. Int J Qual Health Care 2003; 15 Suppl. I: i41–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wysowski DK, Swartz L. Adverse drug event surveillance and drug withdrawals in the United States, 1969–2002. Arch Intern Med 2005 Jun 27; 165(12): 1363–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System. The future of drug safety: promoting and protecting the health of the public. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gottlieb S. Opening pandora’s pillbox: using modern information tools to improve drug safety. Health Aff 2005 Jul/Aug; 24(4): 938–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cullen D, Bates D, Small S, et al. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1995 Oct; 21(10): 549–52

    Google Scholar 

  11. Talbot JCC, Nilsson BS. Pharmacovigilance in the pharmaceutical industry. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45: 427–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29(5): 385–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brewer T, Colditz GA. Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions: current perspectives and future needs. JAMA 1999 Mar 3; 281(9): 824–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Carpenter D, Zucker EJ, Avorn J. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med 2008 Mar 27; 358(13): 1354–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Abraham J, Davis C. A comparative analysis of drug safety withdrawals in the UK and the US (1971–1992): implications for current regulatory thinking and policy. Soc Sci Med 2005; 61(5): 881–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Furberg C, Levin A, Gross P, et al. The FDA and drug safety. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 1938–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Murphy S, Roberts R. “Black box” 101: how the Food and Drug Administration evaluates, communicates, and manages drug benefit/risk. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 117: 34–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karch AM. The gray areas of black box warnings: who is responsible for heeding them? Am J Nurs 2006 Jun; 106(6): 77–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, et al. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA 2002 May 1; 287(17): 2215–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abroms L, Maibach E, Lyon-Daniel K, et al. What is the best approach to reducing birth defects associated with isotretinoin? PLoS Med 2006 Nov; 3(11): 1978–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Doshi AE. The cost of clear skin: balancing the social and safety costs of iPLEDGE with the efficacy of accutane (isotretinoin). Seton Hall Law Rev 2007; 37: 625–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Roche Pharmaceuticals. Roche discontinues and plans to delist accutane in the US [press release; online]. Available from URL: http://www.rocheusa.com/newsroom/current/2009/pr2009062601.html [Accessed 2009 Sep 4]

  23. Garbe E, Andersohn F. Contraindication labelling changes in the United States and Germany. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63(1): 87–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Furberg CD. Decisions by regulatory agencies: are they evidence-based? Trials 2007 Apr 11; 8(1): 13 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-8-13.pdf [Accessed 2009 Sep 4]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reggi V, Balocco-Mattavelli R, Bonati M, et al. Prescribing information in 26 countries: a comparative study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003 Aug; 59(4): 263–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Vitry A, Lexchin J, Sasich L, et al. Provision of information on regulatory authorities’ websites. Intern Med J 2008 Mar 11; 38(7): 559–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Steinbrook R. Science, politics, and federal advisory committees. N Engl J Med 2004 Apr 1; 350(14): 1454–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Roden DM, Temple R. The US Food and Drug Administration Cardiorenal Advisory Panel and the drug approval process. Circulation 2005 Apr 5; 111(13): 1697–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Merrill RA. Modernizing the FDA: an incremental revolution. Health Aff 1999 Mar/Apr; 18(2): 96–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shamoo AE. Role of conflict of interest in public advisory councils. In: Cheney D, editor. Ethical issues in research. Frederick (MD): University Publishing Group, 1993; 159–74

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nguyen NT, Cook DM, Bero LA. The decision-making process of US Food and Drug Administration advisory committees on switches from prescription to over-the-counter status: a comparative case study. Clin Ther 2006 Aug; 28(8): 1231–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Smith BLR. The advisers: scientists in the policy process. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ackerley N, Eyraud J, Mazzotta M. Measuring conflict of interest and expertise on FDA advisory committees, 2007 October 26 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/ergcoireport.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  34. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Joint Meeting of the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee and the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, July 10, 2008, Sheraton Washington North Hotel, Beltsville, Maryland: questions [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/questions/2008-4372q1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  35. Neale T. Risks of suicidal ideation and behavior with epilepsy drugs reaffirmed. MedPage Today 2008 Jul 10 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/10086 [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  36. Creswell JW, Hanson WE, Plano VLC, et al. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Counsel Psych 2007 Mar; 35(2): 236–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sandelowski M. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 2001 Jun; 24(3): 230–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Neuman WL. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 4th ed. Boston (MA): Allyn and Bacon,2000

    Google Scholar 

  39. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee with the Pediatric Subcommittee of the Anti-infective Drugs Advisory Committee, 2004 February 2 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/transcripts/4006T1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  40. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee in Joint Session with the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 2006 December 15 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4266t2-part1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  41. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee, 2005 July 13 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4148T1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  42. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 2005 December 2 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4195T1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  43. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, 2006 May 17 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4216t1-transcript.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  44. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 2006 March 23 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4212T1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Mar 31]

  45. Gerber BJ, Neeley GW. Perceived risk and citizen preferences for governmental management of routine hazards. Policy Stud J 2005; 33(3): 395–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shapiro SA, Glicksman RL. Risk regulation at risk. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hirst C, Cook S, Dai W, et al. A call for international harmonization in therapeutic risk management. Pharmaco-epidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15(12): 839–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Jardine CG, Hrudey SE, Shortreed JH, et al. Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks. J Toxicol Environ Health B 2003; 6(6): 569–718

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Sunstein CR. Risk and reason: safety, law, and the environment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schierow L-J. The role of risk analysis and risk management in environmental protection. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2005 Mar 1

    Google Scholar 

  51. Andrews E, Dombeck M. The role of scientific evidence of risks and benefits in determining risk management policies for medications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 599–608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Epstein SS, Ashford NA, Blackwelder B, et al. The crisis in US and International Cancer Policy. Int J Health Serv 2002; 32(4): 669–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Callreus T. The precautionary principle and pharmaceutical risk management. Drug Saf 2005; 28(6): 465–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lasser KE, Seger DL, Yu DT, et al. Adherence to black box warnings for prescription medications in outpatients. Arch Intern Med 2006 Feb 13; 166(3): 338–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wagner AK, Chan KA, Dashevsky I, et al. FDA drug prescribing warnings: is the black box half empty or half full? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2006; 15(6): 369–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Aaronson DW. The ’’black box’’ warning and allergy drugs. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006 Jan; 117(1): 40–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Stafford RS. Regulating off-label drug use: rethinking the role of the FDA. N Engl J Med 2008 Apr 3; 358(14): 1427–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Psaty BM, Ray W. FDA guidance on off-label promotion and the state of the literature from sponsors. JAMA 2008 Apr 23; 299(16): 1949–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Hampton T. Experts weigh in on promotion, prescription of off-label drugs. JAMA 2007 Feb 21; 297(7): 683–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Olfson M, Marcus SC, Druss BG. Effects of Food and Drug Administration warnings on antidepressant use in a national sample. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008 Jan; 65(1): 94–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Food and Drug Administration. Prescription drug advertising (21CFR202.1). US Government Printing Office, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2001/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr202.1.pdf [Accessed 2009 Sep 4]

  62. Wright C, Schnoll S, Bernstein D. Risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for drugs with abuse liability: public interest, special interest, conflicts of interest, and the industry perspective. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008 Oct; 1141: 284–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Thompson CA. Hospital inspectors eye black-box warnings. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008 May 15; 65(10): 890–4

    Google Scholar 

  64. Weatherby LB, Nordstrom BL, Fife D, et al. The impact of wording in ’’Dear doctor’’ letters and in black box labels. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002 Dec; 72(6): 735–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Allen LaPointe NM, Pappas P, Deverka P, et al. Patient receipt and understanding of written information provided with isotretinoin and estrogen prescriptions. J Gen Intern Med 2007 Jan; 22(1): 98–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Shrank WH, Agney-Blais J, Choudhry NK, et al. The variability and quality of medication container labels. Arch Intern Med 2007 Sep 10; 167(16): 1760–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. CERTs annual report: year 4, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/certsrep4.pdf. [Accessed 2009 Aug 27]

  68. US FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry: development and use of risk minimization action plans. Rockville (MD): US DHHS, Food and Drug Administration, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kaufman M. FDA plans new board to monitor drug safety. The Washington Post 2005 Feb 16 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25893-2005Feb15.html [Accessed 2009 Aug 7]

  70. Bush JK, Dai WS, Dieck GS, et al. The art and science of risk management: a US research-based industry perspective. Drug Saf 2005; 28(1): 1–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Schultz WB. Bolstering the FDA’s drug-safety authority. N Engl J Med 2007 Nov 29; 357(22): 2217–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Traynor K. Law gives FDA new enforcement clout. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007 Nov 15; 64(22): 2314–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Department of Health and Human Services. Identification of drug and biological products deemed to have risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for purposes of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, 2007. Fed Regist 2008 Mar 27; 73(60): 16313–4

    Google Scholar 

  74. Department of Health and Human Services. Supplemental applications proposing labeling changes for approved drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Fed Regist 2008; 73(164): 49603–10

    Google Scholar 

  75. Vlad I, Sallot LM, Reber BH. Rectification without assuming responsibility: testing the transgression flowchart with the Vioxx recall. J Public Relat Res 2006; 18(4): 357–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Abraham J. The science and politics of medicines control. Drug Saf 2003; 26(3): 135–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Subcommittee on Science and Technology of the FDA Science Board. FDA science and mission at risk, 2007 November [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_01_FDA%20Report%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf [Accessed 2007 Dec 4]

  78. Sarewitz D, Pielke Jr R, Keykhah M. Vulnerability and risk: some thoughts from a political and policy perspective. Risk Anal 2003; 23(4): 805–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Christine Cheng, PharmD, for her helpful comments. The authors declare there are no competing interests to disclose and that they have received no specific funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada Reno, Mailstop 274, Reno, Nevada, 89557, USA

    Daniel M. Cook & Rama K. Gurugubelli

  2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

    Lisa A. Bero

Authors
  1. Daniel M. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rama K. Gurugubelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa A. Bero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel M. Cook.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cook, D.M., Gurugubelli, R.K. & Bero, L.A. Risk Management Policy and Black-Box Warnings. Drug-Safety 32, 1057–1066 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/11316670-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11316670-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation